P A R T N E R S H I P D E M O G R A P H I C S &

S U M M A R Y O F S U R V E Y

A P R I L 2 0 T H , 2 0 1 0

National Ecosystem Services Partnership

1

Llael Cox, Research Associate Lydia Olander, NESP Acting Director

Kathryn Saterson, NESP Federal Agency Coordinator

Contents 2

I.  Partnership Demographics a.  By region b.  By institution type

II.  Partnership Survey a.  Results and Outcomes

III.  Appendix a.  More detailed comments by respondents

3

Partnership Demographics

4

Who’s Involved in the Partnership?

•  235 interested parties

•  81 participants active in working groups

• 5% International

30% 18%

23%

17%

DC/Maryland 17%

Ecosystem Service Business

28 12%

Other Business 15 6%

University 97

40%

Foundation 2

1%

Other Research 23 9%

Advocacy/ Conservation Organization

34 14%

Local Government

3 1%

State Government

5 2%

Federal Government

37 15%

Involvement by Specific Institution Type

5

6

Partnership Survey Results

“Impressed” “excited” “looking forward” “really good idea” “wonderful idea” “excellent forum” “great job” “thank you”

76% of respondents said yes interested in participating in NESP, 23% not sure

Partnership Participants Survey Respondents

Who Responded?

23

44

13

Government Non-profit (and Academic) Business

7

  82 Respondents

  32 responses from original kick-off group

  Only 3 anonymous responses

  76% are sure they want to participate in partnership

Comments:

o  “National” is limiting to USA

Other suggestions:

o  National Ecosystem Services Collaborative (NESC)

o  The Ecosystem Values Alliance (TEVA)

o An International Ecosystem Services Partnership (IESP)

0 10 20 30 40 50

The National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP)

A Partnership on Ecosystem Services (PES)

A National Partnership on Ecosystem Services (NPES)

The Ecosystem Services Alliance (TESA)

A Consortium on Ecosystem Services (ACES)

A Collaboration on Ecosystem Services (ACES)

Other

Survey Results on Partnership Name

8

# of Respondents

Final Partnership Name:

The National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP)

Defining Ecosystem Services 9

1.  Ecosystem services are the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems, categorized into provisioning, regulating, cultural, or supporting services. (UN Millennium Assessment)

2.  Ecosystem services are the processes by which the environment produces resources upon which humans are dependent. (Ecological Society of America)

3.  Ecosystem services create the benefits that people obtain from nature, such as clean air and water, natural resources, and the enjoyment of natural areas (Variation on UN Millennium Assessment)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

For the purposes of the partnership, how should we define Ecosystem Services?

Final Definition of Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem goods and services are ecological processes, products, and qualities that directly or indirectly improve human welfare; for example, clean air and water, biological diversity, wetlands, nutrient cycling and hydrologic regulation.

Vision, Mission, and Audience 10

Comments:

•  “Nature’s benefits” more inclusive and has broader appeal

• Partnership should avoid taking stance on policy

• Add “for the long-term benefit of humankind”

• “Full” valuation and consideration is unrealistic

• Simple is best

• Should be inclusive of all decisions

• Missing fish and wildlife

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

A world where nature's benefits are fully valued in decisions and markets.

A world where decisions fully account for ecosystem services.

A world where all public and private decisions fully account for ecosystem

services, supported by appropriate market and policy incentives to create a sustainable human dependence on the

environment. A world where ecosystem services are

fully valued and considered in public and private decisions impacting land, water,

and air.

Other

Survey Results on Vision Statement 11

Final Partnership Vision Statement: We envision a world where ecosystem goods and services are valued and considered in public and private decisions.

Modifications to #1:

•  Transforming … with “scientific” information…

• …approaches that allow us to value and manage ecosystem services for human health and well being and preserve our natural systems.

Modifications to #3:

• …for human health and well being.

Modifications to #4:

• Improving human health and well being by providing and disseminating credible and innovative research to enhance decisions about ecosystem services.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Transforming decision making with credible information and innovative

approaches to create a more sustainable human dependence on the environment.

Transforming decision making to incorporate ecosystem services through

development and distribution of credible information and the creation of new

solutions driven research.

Enhancing the effectiveness of ecosystem services research, markets, and decision

making.

Transforming the way decisions are made by facilitating the development and dissemination of interdisciplinary

knowledge for valuing and managing ecosystem services for human health and

well being.

Other

Survey Results on Mission Statement

12

Final Partnership Mission Statement: The mission of the NESP is to create and communicate useful and credible information and tools to improve public and private decisions affecting ecosystem goods and services and the sustainability of their provision.

Though Federal decisions were most often ranked highest (5), almost all decision types received approximately equal overall scores.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Consumer decisions Private natural resource use decisions

Local public natural resource use decisions

Federal natural resource use decisions

What types of decisions are most important for the partnership to influence though their

activities? •  Scores for “Local public” decisions and “private decisions” may have been underestimated due to confusion:

•  Local public was meant primarily to mean local government

•  State level was included in Local decisions

•  Private decisions included business and NGO decisions

13

Objectives and Activities 14

More Objectives: •  Develop national policies

• Facilitate the development of markets

• Develop analysis tools and sources of valuation data

• Build regional capacity through demonstration projects of tool systems and supporting databases (e.g. GIS)

• Coordinate national and international ES initiatives

• Remove barriers to innovation

• Manage and support joint research activities

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Facilitate new solution-driven collaborations to create transformative

information and innovation on ecosystem service markets, research, policy, and

outreach. The new solution driven collaborations could be in the form of new Enhance collaborations and efficiencies in the use of human and financial resources through improved communication, and

assessments of needs and gaps.

Support public and private decision making through the provision of relevant,

timely, and credible information about ecosystem services.

Streamline public and private regulation and incentives for ecosystem service

consideration (e.g., across federal agencies).

Other

What should be the main objectives of the partnership?

15

Final Partnership Objectives 16

1.  Building a network of researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers that establishes a direct and interactive connection between the research community and the needs of user groups (e.g., working with ongoing efforts, and via a web portal, email lists, meetings).

2.   Increasing communication, collaboration and alignment within and among public and private organizations working on ecosystem service policy, management, and practice.

3.  Evaluating, synthesizing and creating information (data, models, policy instruments, management approaches etc.) on the biophysical basis of ecosystem service production; the valuation of ecosystem services; and policy and market frameworks for sustaining ecosystem services. - all in the context of end user needs;

4.   Communicating this information effectively by packaging it in user-friendly forms (toolkits, annotated case studies, “best practices” guides, etc.) and making it available freely, quickly and efficiently (e.g., via web portals) to inform researchers on needs and user communities on the latest research.

Partnership Structure 17

Roles:

• Provide a membership category to engage individuals

• Sponsors who are otherwise not active should not be “partners”

Commitments:

• If need centralized staff, then direct support is needed (not in-kind)

• Required financial contribution would discourage NGOs from joining

• Must prove value of partnership prior to getting contributions

• Have various levels and types of contributions, but all confer same privilege

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Can only institutions be partners?

Should partners be differentiated from non-partners or members by

being a signatory to an MOU, which requires some level of

agreement on mission, objectives, and governance?

Should the MOU for the partnership also require some level

of commitment (time, money, or expertise)?

If non-governmental partners contribute financially to the

partnership, and some of these funds are redistributed to further

the mission of the partnership, should they be available only to or

preferentially to full partners?

What does it mean to be a partner?

Yes

No

Not Sure

18

Selected Comments:

• To thrive, a secure source of funding is needed, not just year-to-year appropriations

• Allow funders to earmark where their funding is going

• Decide later: have a good solid board make these decisions

• Diversify

• Also from government research funding,, corporations, foundations and financially able non-profits 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Agreements with federal government agencies

Fees/dues from for-profit and other financially able

partners

In-kind contributions from non-profit institutions that

are less financially able

Sources for operational funds in the long-term should come from:

Yes No Not sure

19

Comments:

• Have steady operational funding so that special initiative funding is rarely needed

• Should have mix of all

•  NESP staff provides oversight while major projects occur in centers, over long term

• Need mechanism to ensure adherence to mission

• Leave open the door to fund individual research

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Gets money and uses it themselves

Gets money and passes it on

Help others get money

What is the partnership's special initiative funding strategy? The partnership staff...

Yes No Not sure

Where We Are: Partnership 21

  Who can be a partner: All interested parties, whether organizations or individuals, may be a partner.

  Becoming a partner: A sign-on document will allow interested parties to endorse the partnership vision, mission, and objectives, and thus become a partner (in development)

  Funding: The Partnership will be pursing multiple forms of support – government agreements, foundation and corporate giving, and member dues.

M O R E D E T A I L E D S U M M A R I E S O F S U R V E Y C O M M E N T S

Appendix 22

Respondents want NESP to:

Coordinate   Access timely and cutting-edge information and tools   Coordinate activity across regions and scales   Ensure research is useful to institutions and communities   Reduce transaction costs due to multiple formal

partnerships; have just one

Collaborate   Find partners for joint projects and alliances   Student and scholarly internships and exchanges   Increase efficiency of collaboration and sharing   Moving results to regulatory sector   Access to expertise

Create Tools and Guidance   Promote credible guidance to inform policy   Create compensation protocol for landowners who

conserve   Make it easy to consider the value of ES in regulatory

frameworks

Influence   Influence programs and policies   Represent key stakeholders   Raise national profile of valuation of services provided by

the natural environment   Promote use of markets   Create incentives for enhancing the environment

Communicate •  Dissemination of research •  Education and outreach •  Aligned to mission, promote organization goals

Fund and Find Funding •  Potential source of funding •  Guide investments by private funders

Specific Knowledge Desired from NESP: •  Policy design and implementation •  Identify research needs, gaps, and priorities •  Analysis methods •  ES within built environment •  Original research on market-based valuation of ES •  Cost-benefit assessments

Concerns: •  Giving any appearance of preferential access to or

influence on federal decision-making •  Remember state resource agencies

23

Roles Respondents Say They Would Play:

Source of information   Technical expertise   Perform research and provide research

questions   Policy recommendations   Corporate perspective

Networker   Outreach and education   Web portal host and resource clearinghouse   Engage landowners and stakeholders   Engage international community

Coordinator   Host or regional hub   Organizer   Provide internet platform   International engagement

Sponsor   Financial   In-kind contributions

Information synthesizer   Translate knowledge to local context   Publication   Center of Excellence

Collaborator   Project-based involvement in Centers   Provide student and scholarly exchanges   Regional and topical collaborations

Leadership   Board of directors   Advisory role   Committee participant

Implementation   Monitoring and evaluation   Training   Market and policy design and application   Testing outcomes

24

Research Priorities: 1. Quantification and Evaluation of Ecosystem Services

25   Research on Quantification to:

  Quantify joint production of   Identify services that can be maintained or restored

in disturbed systems   Track trans-boundary flows of ecosystem services/

disservices   Identify variations in services on local, regional and

national levels   Understand production functions under alternate

scenarios   Determine minimum requirements for ecosystem

functions   Determine best indicators

  Comparisons   Comparison and evaluations of various standards for

quantifying and valuing ES   Quantitative comparisons of the cost of provisioning

benefits thought ES vs. human-engineered solutions

  Methods and Tools   Improve predictive capability for the ecological

processes underlying creation and provision of ecosystem services

  Develop index of ES health using a suite of indicators   Vet assessment approaches   Develop methods of valuation that recognize

tradeoffs among services (e.g. use equilibrium oriented methods and value suites of services)

  Create scalable assessment tools   Create comprehensive (multi-service) tools

  Valuation and Costs and Benefits   Value and monetize ES for market development   Cost-benefit analysis of management decisions   Value at site scale, using models and direct

monitoring   Include relative human value (not monetary)   Increase the accuracy of accounting for natural

resource impacts (loss/gain of services) over the 50-year lifetime

  Long term and inclusive environmental monitoring   Within a project and across multiple projects   Quantify the response of ecosystems to human

modifications   Understand the fundamental biological and

geochemical processes that sustain ecosystem services

  Standardization   Standardize protocols for quantifying ecosystem

services benefits and the economic and ecosystem costs of policy positions

  Develop habitat-, ecoregion-, and services-specific frameworks

  Prioritize the ecosystems of interest   Create formal scientifically-based language for ES

  Risks   Consider risk of net harm to some ecosystem services

from regulatory ecosystem markets ostensibly intended to protect those services from harm.

Research Priorities: 2. Research to identify and address society’s barriers to incorporating

ecosystem services and values in public and private decisions

26

  Education and Outreach   Develop tools and materials to facilitate education at

university level   Conduct public surveys of ecosystem services   Pursue ecojustice in disadvantaged populations   Understand real and predicted behavioral reactions

to ES policy options   Communicate personal value of ecosystem services,

including the services they are getting free   Provide guidelines on marketing ecosystem services

for NGO use

  New policy and tools   Develop instruments to internalize ES externalities   Easy to interpret dynamic models for decision

makers; make accessible   Tools for land use management that link to local and

municipal land development systems

  Work with private sector   Develop tools to estimate the effect of incorporating

ES into decision-making frameworks on enhanced shareholder value in private sector

  Business balance sheets and data to inform decision-making

  Synthesis of best practices   Case studies that highlight success in overcoming

societal barriers   Explain how best to communicate ES concepts and

benefits to the public   Compile public, private, and legal perspective   Bundle existing research so practitioners can more

easily turn science into policy tools

  New research to:   Address the temporal and spatial disconnect between

the benefits people use and the delivery of services   Understand why ES values are not factored into

decisions   Understand what it would take to change behavior   Identify site specific factors (culture, socio economic

conditions, governance, etc.) that influence behavioral change

  Incorporate GIS and other existing models into ES research

  Identify barriers posed by the theoretical literature (for example, additionality and/or conditionality), and how these are overcome in specific socio-political contexts

  Devise a better accounting of the flow of benefits, including discounting in time and distance-decay in space

  Develop futures scenarios for different levels of resource use

Research Priorities: 3. Research on market and policy design for ecosystem services

27

  Provide guidance on:   Best practices and design templates for practitioners

to use   Model policies   Effective ways to convey the results and implications

of research to decision makers   Policy case studies to inform scientific researchers   Current pilot studies globally

  Research on Policy and Markets to:   Understand how to transition incentive-programs to

market based programs   Identify policies to minimize abuse by financial

institutions   Provide guidance for government agencies on most

effective projects to undertake   Determine the appropriate balance between coercive

tools and market tools for key industrial sectors   Quantify non-market impacts and trade-offs of

policies   Identify approaches that can scale or accelerate the

valuation of ecosystem services   Analyze sustainable supply, production and

marketing chain

  Markets   Scale markets to match the flow of benefits and to

include the relevant stakeholders   Determine who pays what for ES goods and services   Value individual services, but regulate and monetize

bundled ecosystem credits   Develop framework and pilot a market for ecosystem

services

  Recommendations   Achieve a unity of purpose among Federal agencies

that allows for mutually consistent policies   Reconcile environmental policy with economic needs

in a way that provides a common set of metrics   Use natural disasters as lessons learned in what

might have been mitigated   Establish a 'biodiversity standard' for the supply of

biodiversity-protected areas   Explore incorporating nature's assets into GDP   Clarify whether the primary goal is (a) to sustain

ecosystem services for human health and well being or (b) to limit harm to ecosystem services from human action

More Comments on Roles of Partners Require commitment? •  Required commitment (of any kind) assures active participants •  Have various levels and types of contributions, but all confer

same privilege •  Obtain philosophical (vision and mission), financial (time, money,

resources) and operational (active participation) commitments •  Require resource commitment (time, money, or in-kind)

Require financial contributions? Yes •  If need centralized staff, then direct support (not in-kind) is needed •  Not everyone needs to be a "Partner". Focus on attracting institutions

that intend to use ES information in active management or decision making

No •  Be inclusive, avoid exclusivity •  Would discourage NGOs from joining •  Require time and sweat equity, but not financial •  Must prove value of partnership prior to getting contributions •  MOUs generally do not require resource commitments •  To get leading thinkers involved, must offer benefits. Requiring

contributions in early stage not practical

Role of individuals •  Only institutions should be partners, but need a category for

individuals who can benefit by being a member •  Let individual researchers participate and provide minority views •  Engage stakeholders that represent end-users who would not sign an

MOU

Decide another way:   Have summit to encourage diversity and define roles of partners there   Compromise b/w being inclusive and being effective; make core

decisions but allow for adaptive modifications later

Concerns:   Concerned some participants equate ES valuation with market

valuation   Property rights issues involved in “contributing expertise”?

Possible Roles: •  Partners are doers, members are more passive information sharers •  Partners can be defined organically •  Sponsors who are otherwise not active should not be “partners”

Who should be members?   Membership should also apply to corporations and cities and states.   Need representatives of the forest and agricultural land owning

communities

Other Suggestions/Comments:   There is value in having a significant number of fully partnered groups

sign on to this initiative   Partners should have demonstrable and quantifiable experience in

ecosystem service markets, studies, policy, etc.   Hold yearly meeting of partners

28

Other Models to Look At

Partnership/Membership Roles:   The Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (PERF) is loosely organized and as

projects come forward then individuals sign on to the individual projects. PERF started because API was too formally organized around an annual budget where executives had to agree on the scope rather than technical peers collaborating which is the PERF model.

  How did MEA incentivize partners?

International:   Include international institutions such as GEO BON or DIVERSITAS

Funding:   Check out LISS, GOM CME regarding special initiative funding   Seek funds from corporations who subscribe to Corporate Environmental

Responsibility (CER) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), other sources of green funding including CDM, GEF etc.

  Congressional mandate would allow federal funds to more easily be applied (like in the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation model)

29